Comparison

Ideal Weight Formulas: Devine, Hamwi, Robinson & Miller — Which One Is Right for You?

Four classic formulas give different ideal weight estimates based on height and sex. Devine is the most commonly referenced in medical literature, Hamwi is the simplest, Robinson and Miller are more conservative.

Interactive comparison tool

Your Details

cm

Formula Comparison Results

Devine (1974)

Primary
70.5kg

Hamwi (1964)

72kg

Robinson (1983)

68.9kg

Miller (1985)

68.7kg

Formula Results Comparison

Result Range

63.7 kg77 kg
Devine
Hamwi
Robinson
Miller

Key Insight

For a male at 175 cm with medium frame, the four formulas give results from 68.7 kg to 72 kg. Devine (1974) is the most commonly referenced in medical literature, while the newer formulas (Robinson, Miller) tend to give more conservative estimates. These are reference ranges, not targets — individual healthy weights vary based on muscle mass, bone density, and body composition.

At a glance

When to use which

When to use Devine / Hamwi

Use Devine when you want the most commonly referenced formula in medical literature, or Hamwi when you want the simplest and easiest to remember.

When to use Robinson / Miller

Use Robinson or Miller when you want a more conservative, lower ideal weight estimate, or when the Devine formula gives a result that seems too high.

Accuracy
Devine / Hamwi: Established historical reference, but based on limited original data. Devine was derived from a 1974 actuarial table, not a population study. Hamwi was proposed in 1964 with minimal documentation.
Robinson / Miller: Robinson (1983) and Miller (1985) were developed from more modern data. They tend to produce lower values and may better reflect current population norms.
Best for
Devine / Hamwi: Medical reference, drug dosing calculations (Devine is used in many clinical algorithms), and quick mental estimates.
Robinson / Miller: Conservative weight targets, research contexts where more recent reference data is preferred, and cases where Devine/Hamwi overestimate.
Side by side

Detailed comparison

Definition
Devine / Hamwi
Devine formula (1974): Developed for gentamicin dosing. Men: 50 kg + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 ft. Women: 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg per inch over 5 ft. Hamwi formula (1964): Men: 106 lb for 5 ft + 6 lb per inch over. Women: 100 lb for 5 ft + 5 lb per inch over.
Robinson / Miller
Robinson formula (1983): Men: 52 kg + 1.9 kg per inch over 5 ft. Women: 49 kg + 1.7 kg per inch over 5 ft. Miller formula (1985): Men: 56.2 kg + 1.41 kg per inch over 5 ft. Women: 53.1 kg + 1.36 kg per inch over 5 ft.
Formula Origin
Devine / Hamwi
Devine: Published in 1974 as a guide for antibiotic dosing, not weight management. Hamwi: Proposed in a 1964 medical textbook with no published validation data to support its derivation.
Robinson / Miller
Robinson: Published in 1983 with a critique of the Devine formula, proposing updated values. Miller: Published in 1985, using data from the 1983 Metropolitan Life Insurance tables.
Inputs Required
Devine / Hamwi
Height (in inches or cm above 5 ft base) and sex. Weight is calculated, not input. No age, frame size, or body composition inputs.
Robinson / Miller
Same inputs as Devine/Hamwi: height and sex only. No additional variables. All formulas use the same basic input structure.
Units
Devine / Hamwi
Devine: kg. Hamwi: lb originally. Both can be converted to either system. Results are an absolute weight, not a range.
Robinson / Miller
kg for both Robinson and Miller formulas. Results are a single weight value, not a range. All formulas should be interpreted as a reference point, not a target.
Result Values (Example)
Devine / Hamwi
For a 5'10" male: Devine = 78 kg (172 lb), Hamwi = 76 kg (168 lb). For a 5'5" female: Devine = 62 kg (137 lb), Hamwi = 61 kg (134 lb).
Robinson / Miller
For a 5'10" male: Robinson = 73 kg (161 lb), Miller = 70 kg (154 lb). For a 5'5" female: Robinson = 58 kg (128 lb), Miller = 56 kg (124 lb).
Use in Medical Literature
Devine / Hamwi
Devine is the most widely referenced formula in medical literature, particularly for drug dosing and clinical algorithms. The most commonly used for kidney function calculations.
Robinson / Miller
Less commonly used in medical literature. Robinson and Miller are more frequently cited in research comparing ideal weight formulas rather than in clinical applications.
Limitations
Devine / Hamwi
Based on limited, non-representative data. Devine was never intended for weight management. Hamwi has no documented derivation. Both are biased toward taller individuals.
Robinson / Miller
More conservative values may underestimate healthy weight for some individuals. Still based on the same height-only input model, which ignores body composition.
Gender Differences
Devine / Hamwi
Devine: 4.5 kg base difference (men start at 50 kg, women at 45.5 kg). Hamwi: 6 lb base difference (men at 106 lb, women at 100 lb).
Robinson / Miller
Robinson: 3 kg base difference (men at 52 kg, women at 49 kg). Miller: 3.1 kg base difference (men at 56.2 kg, women at 53.1 kg).
Best Use Case
Devine / Hamwi
Quick clinical reference, drug dosing calculations, and when a single reference number is needed for medical documentation.
Robinson / Miller
More conservative weight reference, research comparisons, and when the Devine or Hamwi values seem too high for your frame.
Primary Use Case
Devine / Hamwi
"What does the standard medical reference say my ideal weight should be?" — Devine is the default answer in most clinical contexts.
Robinson / Miller
"What is a more conservative, modern ideal weight estimate?" — Robinson and Miller provide lower reference values that may better suit some individuals.
Decision guide

Which fits your situation

Pick Devine / Hamwi
A doctor or pharmacist needs your ideal weight for a drug dosage calculation.

Devine is the formula most commonly used in clinical drug dosing algorithms, including for kidney function (eGFR) calculations. Medical professionals are trained to reference Devine.

Pick Robinson / Miller
You want to see the most conservative (lowest) ideal weight estimate.

Miller typically produces the lowest values of the four formulas, followed by Robinson. If you are looking for a more conservative weight target, these formulas are the better choice.

Pick Devine / Hamwi
You are a healthcare professional and need a quick mental estimate for a patient.

Hamwi is the simplest formula to remember and calculate mentally. For men: 106 lb for 5 ft + 6 lb per inch. For women: 100 lb for 5 ft + 5 lb per inch. No calculator needed.

Pick Either
You are researching ideal weight formulas and want to compare all four against modern population data.

Use all four formulas together. The spread between the highest and lowest result gives you a useful reference range. A gap of 5-15 lb between formulas is normal and tells you that ideal weight is not a precise number.

Pick Robinson / Miller
The Devine formula gives you a number that seems too high for your frame size.

Robinson and Miller produce lower values than Devine and Hamwi. If you have a smaller frame, these may give a more realistic reference point. None of these formulas account for frame size, so individual judgment is important.

Pick Either
You want to set a weight-loss target and need a reference range, not a single number.

All four formulas taken together give you a range. For example, a 5'10" man might get 70-78 kg (154-172 lb). Use this range as a reference, not a target. Your healthy weight depends on muscle mass, body composition, and individual factors.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the four ideal weight formulas?
The four formulas differ in their derivation data and resulting values. Devine (1974) and Hamwi (1964) are older formulas that tend to produce higher ideal weight estimates. Robinson (1983) and Miller (1985) are newer formulas that produce more conservative (lower) values. For a 5'10" male, the range spans roughly 70-78 kg (154-172 lb), depending on which formula you use.
Which ideal weight formula is most accurate?
None of these formulas are "accurate" in a modern sense — they were all developed from limited data and do not account for body composition, frame size, or muscle mass. Devine is the most commonly referenced in medical literature, particularly for drug dosing. For practical weight management, these formulas are best used as a very rough reference range, not a precise target.
Why do these formulas give such different results?
The formulas were developed decades apart from different data sources. Devine was based on a 1974 actuarial table, Hamwi came from a 1964 textbook with no published data, and Robinson and Miller used more recent insurance data. The differences reflect changing population demographics and different statistical approaches rather than improvements in accuracy.
Should I use these formulas to set a weight loss goal?
The ideal weight formulas can give you a very rough reference range, but they should not be your primary target for weight loss. A better approach is to focus on a healthy body fat percentage range, waist circumference, and how you feel at different weights. These formulas are most useful as a historical reference point, not a modern health target.
Do these formulas work for athletes or muscular individuals?
No — none of these formulas account for muscle mass. An athlete with above-average muscle mass will exceed these formulas by a significant margin while being perfectly healthy. The formulas were designed for average, non-athletic populations and are not appropriate for bodybuilders, strength athletes, or anyone with above-average muscle development.
Why is Devine still used in medical settings?
Devine remains in medical use primarily because it is the formula embedded in eGFR (kidney function) calculations and other clinical algorithms. Changing these algorithms requires extensive validation and regulatory approval. For drug dosing purposes, consistency matters more than accuracy, which is why a decades-old formula persists in medical practice.
Keep going

Ideal Weight Calculator

See your ideal weight range across four classic formulas: Devine, Hamwi, Robinson, and Miller.

Try it

BMI Calculator

Instantly compute your Body Mass Index with category, ideal weight range, and visual gauge.

Try it

Body Fat Calculator

Estimate your body fat percentage using Navy and YMCA circumference methods with visual feedback.

Try it

BMR Calculator

Estimate your Basal Metabolic Rate using the Mifflin-St Jeor formula with metric and imperial units.

Try it

TDEE Calculator

Turn your BMR into a full Total Daily Energy Expenditure estimate across 5 activity levels.

Try it

Calorie Calculator

Calculate your daily calorie needs for weight maintenance, loss, or muscle gain goals.

Try it
Scenario guides

Explore specific scenarios

Dive deeper into comparison scenarios tailored to your specific situation.

Ideal Weight Formulas Compared

Devine, Hamwi, Robinson, and Miller side by side.

Explore

Hamwi vs Devine Ideal Weight

Historical formulas and where they diverge.

Explore

Ideal Weight for Athletes

Why formulas fail for muscular populations.

Explore

Ideal Weight Range vs Exact Number

Why BMI-derived ranges are scientifically safer.

Explore

Ideal Weight for Men vs Women

Biological basis for sex-specific formulas.

Explore

BMI-Based Ideal Weight vs Formula-Based

Comparing BMI ranges to classic weight formulas.

Explore
More comparisons

BMI vs Body Fat

Which is a better health indicator? Height-to-weight screening vs actual body composition measurement.

Read comparison

BMR vs TDEE

Understand your daily energy budget — BMR is the foundation, TDEE is what you actually eat to.

Read comparison

Keto vs Low Carb

Two popular diet approaches compared for weight loss, adherence, and health outcomes.

Read comparison

Cardio vs Strength Training

Which burns more calories and builds better fitness? Calorie burn, muscle growth, and long-term metabolic health.

Read comparison

Calorie Deficit vs Maintenance

When to cut, when to hold. The choice depends on whether your goal is fat loss, muscle gain, or weight stability.

Read comparison
Back to Category Hub